Apple's deliberate rip-offs
Ivan | Sat, 2006-01-21 07:50
You must have heard about the scandal last October when Apple was rightly accused of plagiarism because of their new iPod commercial art directed in an extremely similar way to the Lugz footwear spot from 2001. The Mac community and many geek news channels were boiling. Hundreds of posts and thousands of comments everywhere. Everyone has seen the new iPod ad.
Early this year Apple unveils the new Intel chip with a television commercial that features the same art direction as a The Postal Service video. Scandal again? Yes, hundreds of posts and thousands of comments everywhere again.
One must wonder if this is just a major screw-up from Apple's marketing department and their agency TBWA\Chiat\Day or a rather genius move to associate Apple with pop music and gain free press attention. At first fans raise their voices over the issue. They talk about it on the net. They talk about it in real life. Some just hear half the story. With time all people will remember is that Apple had to do stuff with Eminem and The Postal Service and some other cool bands. What remains in the unconscious is that pop music is part of the Apple brand.
I say Apple doesn't do a mistake like this twice. I say this is a strategy. A rather brilliant one. What do you say?
Commenting on this Blog entry is closed.
that same people behind this Postal Service video are behind the Apple commercial.
-------------------------------
Infinite Style
True. http://cultofmac.com/index.php/2006/01/17/false_alarm_same_directors_behind_apple
http://www.aciddesign.nl/v3/
Oh come on, Ivan, to say the least it's a bit one-eyed to see this as just yet more evidence of the Apple deity and His divine works. But, maybe you're right - maybe that's what they were also doing with the early iPod's lousy battery life and replacement ripoff too. Oh we are not worthy. :)
www.beardsworth.co.uk
The Postal Service commercial and the new Apple commercial had the same people behind it so that's excusable. Deliberately copying another work as a strategy is not. The Eminem commercial was blatantly similar to the Lugz commercial. Mistakes can happen and people can forget things that aired in the past but if it's a technique it's underhanded and should be put away.
Lately, I can't say that Apple ads are doing a whole lot for their integrity...whether it's copying another work or bashing another OS without informing the company that makes chips for the systems that those OSs are on. Apple should let their products speak for themselves in that situation
It's one thing to be inspired by a certain work, it's another to copy someone's style for the sake of association or whatever, but I'm afraid the line that divides these is a thin one. it's quite another thing to blatantly rip off someone's work. I don't think the latter is the case here.
I've seen the future of art and design, and it's already been done to death.
Making way for the copy and paste generation,
Terrell Thornhill
e-zign Design Group
Never has one company done so well from viral marketing and rumours. While you could question the creative morals of Apple for pulling of such a stunt it's not going to get them into anymore trouble that with a few moody bloggers. Either way people continue to talk way after the Stevenote and Apple sells a few million more iPods.
He he..
I wouldn't call it "brilliant." Apple's treading a fine line between reappropriation of culture and plaigerism. Then again, it's always been a fine line. If Apple is going to do this, I think they should stick to recreating videos with the permission and/or the assistance of the original creator (as in the case of the Intel commercial), however I can't say I support what they did with the Lugz/Eminem issue.
You're right. Brilliant is long shot.
I saw the Postal Service vid, but I was surprised that Apple had such similarities... I guess it really isn't cooincidence.
But I was also thinking - what if it just happened that given a space to film in, and a camera - two completely different teams came up with remarkably similar shots. That they both chose just the 'best' shot/angle. What would happen? Does that just mean that the one's who did it 2nd have to take 2nd best angle/shots?